Snark about 'actual statistical evidence' notwithstanding, people losing their jobs is entirely compatible with an increase in the number of available jobs because, unsurprisingly, not all jobs are fungible.
What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. From their initial conception they could have been almost totally unmanned. No idea why they weren't. Maybe it would have actually had significant negative social response? I know that in my state, an automobile manufacturer was going to open a plant, but once the politicians found out that the plant was going to be heavily automated and provide 300 rather than 4000 jobs, all tax breaks were rescinded so they went elsewhere.
Watch an episode of "How It's Made" or similar, and note the places where an assembly line includes a human step. Those steps often involve fine adaptable manipulation (e.g. of inconsistently placed items), pattern recognition, or similar.
In general, a machine usually could handle that manufacturing step just as well if not better, but doing so would incur the development costs and construction of a highly specialized machine, plus maintenance. The hourly cost of a human employee may well work out cheaper, either in the short term or potentially even in the long run.
And that leaves aside other potential value of employing humans in those roles, including goodwill/PR/perception. An apparent cost savings from automation will quickly evaporate if the company finds itself on the evening news. That holds doubly true if replacing an existing human role with automation.
I protest your subtle redefinition of what "edible" means :P